Some horrible JPEG artifacts (white fringing at contrast interfaces) due to oversharpening on these shots Pete. I should "tern" back to pijuns if I were you!!
Colin Key wrote:
Some horrible JPEG artifacts (white fringing at contrast interfaces) due to oversharpening on these shots Pete. I should "tern" back to pijuns if I were you!!
Colin
Well, Colin, thank you for pointing that to me......like white outline on the head and the bill of the tern #1.
However, that's not due to pp because it does show on the JPG original to essentially the same extent. I must say I am not sure what that is, and I don't think I have seen it before.
Actually, USM does amplify the white outline....gotta keep my glasses on more often.
It is a sharpening issue. I noticed it earlier but decided not to comment. You also see a similar dark "halo" along the lighter feathers on the left side of the bird's head/shoulders. In addition, you can see it along the bird's legs/feet.
It looks like the size setting was a bit too large and the amount setting a bit too high. For a subject like this I'd go for perhaps a smaller size.
If you did not do this in post, you might want to take a good look at your camera's sharpening settings. I know these things can be a matter of taste, but the reds seem over-saturated when viewed on my calibrated monitor as well.
Since you produce some very nice photographs, I recommend shooting in RAW so that you can customize the sharpening, saturation, etc. in post and retain the best quality in the final image.
Dan
PetKal wrote:
Well, Colin, thank you for pointing that to me......like white outline on the head and the bill of the tern #1.
However, that's not due to pp because it does show on the JPG original to essentially the same extent. I must say I am not sure what that is, and I don't think I have seen it before.
Actually, USM does amplify the white outline....gotta keep my glasses on more often.
The red saturation is not an issue, it's just a shade hotter than the real bird, done on purpose.
The white outline on 100% crops above shows very much, no two ways about it.
Still, one who hasn't seen those Terns before can tell what the birds look like from up close.
You can avoid the sharpening halos by selecting the bg, inverting your selection, contract 1 pixel, and then apply USM. If you apply sharpening globaly (in camera or in PP) the halos will occur and may be noticable.
JimN wrote:
You can avoid the sharpening halos by selecting the bg, inverting your selection, contract 1 pixel, and then apply USM. If you apply sharpening globaly (in camera or in PP) the halos will occur and may be noticable.
Thanx, Jim...that would certainly work. I also found another possible culprit......the sharpness setting in the camera was dialed higher than where I normally keep it.
It also seems that my eyesight has reached the point where I have to start wearing my reading glasses even when looking at images.
PetKal wrote:
Thanx, Jim...that would certainly work. I also found another possible culprit......the sharpness setting in the camera was dialed higher than where I normally keep it.
It also seems that my eyesight has reached the point where I have to start wearing my reading glasses even when looking at images.
I can relate to that. I am wearing my brand new progressive bifocals as we speak.
Mr Zoom wrote:
A Peli-Ken in action 1DIIn + 100-400 kinda close...
Ken
Good shootin', Zoomer......gotta have some reflexes for that. Jim Neiger sure knows that full well. One has to try those things in order to appreciate the finesse involved.
I got something similar although less sharp the other day......an attacking pijun.
PetKal wrote:
Well, Colin, thank you for pointing that to me......like white outline on the head and the bill of the tern #1.
However, that's not due to pp because it does show on the JPG original to essentially the same extent. I must say I am not sure what that is, and I don't think I have seen it before.
Actually, USM does amplify the white outline....gotta keep my glasses on more often.
Peter, I have advised you before, and Dan (following my post) agrees, SHOOT IN RAW - it is the only way to go unless you are a Pro sports shooter who's images appear in newsprint where I.Q. rarely matters. JPEG involves too much in-camera processing.
Going off at a bit of a tangent, I have not previously posted enough photos to warrant paying for the "image upload" facility of this forum. Would that increase the I.Q. of my posted images? I notice that the images I have embedded (URLs from either my PBase or Photobucket sites) are far inferior in terms of sharpness and noise to the originals - is there an automatic down-rezzing of images for us "outsiders"?
I've had a love / hate relationship with my 100-400 since I purchased it a few years ago. I didn't use it much because the shots always seemed pretty soft. Finally I sent it in to Irvine for adjustment and it came back with a note that said "a part was broken inside and was replaced".
It must have been broken from the day I bought it because I've hardly ever used it.
I just took it out for the first time since getting it back to shoot our local Rodeo over the weekend. I haven't had time to process many shots but here are a couple with a bit of LR processing (cowboy hat shadows shot at high noon are a pain in the butt) but no PS processing.
Ugh, you guys are making me seriously consider purchasing a 100-400! I was originally looking at buying a used 300 F/4L... to help round out my 24-105 and my 70-200 F/4L IS... but now this seems really tempting. Does anyone have a 70-200 F/4L IS and a 100-400 F/4L IS and wants to keep both? With my 1.4x TC my 70-200 becomes ~98-280 F/5.6... I just don't know if I can justify owning both of these (not to mention afford them both! haha)
I had the chance to use both before I purchased one of the two lenses, I belong to a photographic club and friends let me trial their lenses. The 100-400 was very versatile and I did like it but found it just was not giving me the sharpness I wanted at 400m, I never had an issue of needing IS so thought Id go with the 400 prime and never looked back. Love it. I also own the 70-200 F2.8L (non IS) and the 1X4 TC so thought in that I would have a zoom lens for stuff like the zoo. I wish I could afford to own both lenses though.
Here is where I like to use my 100-400. This is before the fix at Irvine. The first few were taken with the 100-400 on my Mark III, the last two were taken with it on my XTI. I find that for larger objects (for me) it works just fine but small BIF's or distant BIF's not so good. I haven't tried it on any BIF's since I got it back form Irvine so that is on my list.
JonnyBlazexx wrote:
Ugh, you guys are making me seriously consider purchasing a 100-400! I was originally looking at buying a used 300 F/4L... to help round out my 24-105 and my 70-200 F/4L IS... but now this seems really tempting. Does anyone have a 70-200 F/4L IS and a 100-400 F/4L IS and wants to keep both? With my 1.4x TC my 70-200 becomes ~98-280 F/5.6... I just don't know if I can justify owning both of these (not to mention afford them both! haha)
I use the 70-200 and the 100-400 and I wouldn't trade away either. The 100-400 is pretty big lens and I would rather only carry the 70-200 in a number of situations.
Thank you for your input Dan. Thats what I was hoping to hear. I don't know if my wallet will thank you... but I think I will be making a new purchase soon.
